Ray Zee, what have you done ?

[Cyrus]

Depleting humanity's food supply? (http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/20030617edocean0617p2.asp)

[whiskeytown]

ya know...I'm not a conspiracist....I'm not Chicken Little...

but this [censored] scares me...we've got to get these 3rd world countries off the hunter model and onto the agricultural model...Jesus.

RB

[Ray Zee]

its terrible. when i was a kid all i heard was how the worlds oceans will feed everyone with its endless bounty. now 40 years later there is little left. also they drag the oceans foors and reefs and are destroying the very habitat that lets its rebound some. because of poitics it looks like the future children are going to live in a world of chemically induced food and concrete to walk on. the ones that care enough to fight are called extremists. remember all those sci-fi movies of the future. they are happening now.

[MMMMMM]

It will only get worse unless population growth slows. If it slows humans will have a better chance.

[HDPM]

Yes and no. Certainly lower population helps. But it is not too hard to hunt or fish a species out of existance. That can and does happen in low population scenarios. It is why hunting and gathering can't support much population. (and I am against going back to such a natural state, unlike radical primitivist environmentalists) The current demand for the product will do that even if population stopped growing. Basically we just have to be smarter. Hehe. Also, I am a big fan of technology. I don't think there is any particular limit to population or that population is necessarily a bad thing. The industrialized countries do a better job of controlling population and the rich countries do a better job protecting the environment. So I think if we have rich advanced countries, the problems will be addressed.

[Graham]

but this [censored] scares me...we've got to get these 3rd world countries off the hunter model and onto the agricultural model...Jesus.

Joking? The fault of the third world countries?
As far as fishing goes, it's us developed nations that make agreements with 3rd world countries to allow our ships to rape their part of the oceans. Many north african fisheries are severely depleted by EU fleets under agreement. Result is locals there see dwindling fish catches, leading to exacerbation of poverty. Their govts sell their fisheries out to the likes of us.
Don't think the US and every other developed country isn't doing the same, some worse than others, but we're all in it. Developed countries have the long distance fishing technology, the modern fleets, the agreements and the hungry markets. Don't blame it on the guy over there who's looking at his empty fish basket.

As for fisheries stocks, many are depressed below their level of maximum productivity. It's mad; we'd get more out of them if we let them rebound a bit. That's been forced to happen with the Canadian cod stock, it got so low the fishery was cut off.
Politics prevents optimal exploitation of stocks, partly fuelled by the fact that science regarding populations you can't see and sample efficiently is going to be troublesome (I think someone likened it to sampling the countryside for cows by dragging a trawl net from a helicopter a couple of miles up). The scientists stand there and bleat and wave their hands but shaky no's from fisheries science and their models means that laissez-faire rules, and fishing lobbies and politics have the major say in the face of lack of concrete evidence.

[Graham]

HDPM,

Agree with most of your post, esp. that our populations can be fed providing we get smarter. Except for this glaring one line: the rich countries do a better job protecting the environment

Even if you said 'the rich countries do a better job protecting their own environment', you'd likely still be wrong.

The rich countries are, in almost all cases, the worst for the environment. Strong economies let us go and basically pay other countries to destroy their environment to satisfy our needs/wants. Our dollar buys environmental destruction in other countries. Whose fault is that? Both I guess. Us rich countries also situate a lot of our industry abroad; we do it in someone else's back yard.

This kind of discussion is probably better split up, since "the environment" is very broad. Do you mean the physical resources in the environment, ie forestry, fisheries. Or the likes of CO2, chemical emissions, ozone, etc?

I'm not as pessismistic as Zee's post. I reckon we'll come to our senses before it's just concrete and factory generated food. Plus, like you, I'm a believer in science and technology being able to improve many things.

G

[Ray Zee]

graham, i would like to believe better for the world but have not seen any at all change for the better. every year there are more losses and problems to the environment.

and who wants to live in a worled with so many people just because you can feed them. how many people can fit in a volkswagon.

[adios]

That's what my wife says according to the research she's participated in. I'll see if she'll write up a detailed synoposys of the research or has a link.

[MMMMMM]

"The rich countries are, in almost all cases, the worst for the environment."

Let's not forget that the former Soviet Union did more environmental damage than any country before or since--all while it was going broke. China too has had disastrous environmental policies and results.

I guess you could argue that those countries were rich compared to some countries but they were poor compared to most leading Western democracies. However the trashing of the environment done by the USSR far outweighs the environmental damage done by the USA--believe it or not.

[ChipWrecked]

All we have to do is everybody live underground. This will open up a lot of farmland.

[Zeno]

I will speak in general terms. There is a somewhat mistaken idea that “ developed countries” contribute most to environmental damage. This notion can be traced back to Rousseauian ideas. As if people that live closer to nature are better caretakers. This is a silly idea. A quick travel in countries like Mexico, or parts of Asia would quickly dispel such notions.

But to put things in perspective most developed countries actually have fairly stringent environmental laws that are fairly well enforce (US, Western Europe some Asian countries the Middle East and Eastern Europe are catching up). Some countries have some good environmental laws or regulations that are just show (Mexico for example, or China). And many countries have no laws at all or if they do they are inadequate, but probably could not be enforced if they had them anyway, usually because of a lack of money, people, and also because other priorities simply take precedent – food and health care for example, or defense expenses.

The former Soviet Union, China, other parts of Asia, Mexico and parts of South American have major environmental problems. It is true that “developed nations” have contributed somewhat to some of those problems. But casting a net of blame does not help solve any of the ugly outcomes. People must live, eat, and work, and the environment will always pay a price for those activities. Industrialization is the only way a large population can be maintain on the planet. There is no other choice. Unless you wish for a pandemic or war that slays about half the world’s people.

I have discussed with former colleagues some of the environmental problems in other countries, particularly in the former Soviet Union, and believe me, the problems in the US and most other countries pale in comparison to what is over in southern Russia, Siberia or say the Ukraine, Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan. I have no personal knowledge of problems in China but they may be similar.

It will take a long concerted effort by many people in government, business, industry and technical experts, to say nothing of trillions of dollars, to clean up the mess and to alter the course of how the world has to feed, clothe, and take care of individuals so we function in a sustainable way.

Some think it is an impossible task. I do not. All it takes is a little creative intelligence and the will to implement and enforce reasonable regulations. But I must admit that those particular commodities are sometimes in very short supply.

-Zeno

[Graham]

Zeno,

there is a somewhat mistaken idea that “ developed countries” contribute most to environmental damage.

I should word it better by putting it as: “ developed countries” have contributed most to environmental damage.

Of course many lesser technologically developed countries are in a mess. We had our period where our tanneries spewed chemicals into rivers and the factories pumped out whatever they pumped out back then with scant regard to consequences. Now certain of us nations are over that hump in our developmental history of industrialization. Others are way behind this hump or approaching it or in the middle of it. Pointing at the ones in the hump right now and saying look at them, they're worse than we are isn't exactly...well...fair.

Like you point out in your excellent post, in the penultimate paragraph, it'll take a lot of concerted efforts to alter the course of industrialization for much of the world. Our wealthy sector needs to be part of that and not just putting ourselves up as a model.

We didn't develop cleanly enough ourselves if we're expecting the rest of the world to follow our lead.

G

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
they drag the oceans foors and reefs and are destroying the very habitat that lets its rebound some.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just saw a news story a few days ago which said the Carribean had lost 80% of its coral reefs over the last 30 years or so. That's 80%! I'll find it and post a link when I get a chance later. (Combine that with global warming, the loss of the Amazon rain forest, and all the other little environmental crises and it's really pretty scary.)

[dogsballs]

John,
It's originally in Science, I think. A researcher reviewed the literature over the past x no. of years. Much of the decline was from an untimely coincidence in '83 I think of severe overfishing and mass die-off by disease of the Diadema sea urchin, which keeps algae down and allows corals to survive. Corals and algae usually coexist and compete for space on reefs, with grazers - fish and Diadema pruning the fast-growing algae continuously. Removing these urchins and fish that grazed the algae then allowed the fast growing algae to flourish. Hence, the algae took over from corals.
Joint effort with man and naturally occurring pathogens there, maybe.

[John Feeney]

Yep. Here are two links to news stories about it. (The original Science article requires registration.)

CS Monitor Story (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0718/p02s01-usgn.html?usaNav)

Another report on it in the New Zealand Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3513404&thesection=news&t hesubsection=world)

[brad]

its in the public domain , papers by big name groups and think tanks and such, that the optimal world population is like 200 mil or 1 billion or something.

some people take it to mean the elite have a plan to 'kill off' the bulk of what they themselves call 'useless eaters' but their own policy papers are not so clear and they could be calling for population reduction through decreased birth rates. but the ~500 mil figure is solid.

[MMMMMM]

That's idiotic. I'll move to Mars before then.